Scherzer/Zimmerman

[Shawon0Meter]

It's not necessarily "horrific" but there's also a reason it's not common. There's good reason things are usually paid for while they're being used.

If Scherzer can be good the next 7 years, then it's helpful the next 7 years and harmful the following 7 years after that.

$10 million is still significant money 8 years from now and it will be counting against whatever the Nats are willing to spend, while getting nothing back from it. It will be a factor. I've hated seeing the Cubs pay for players not on their team, yet having it count against what they're willing to spend.

The only reason to drag out spending money is because you can't afford something, and how well does that usually end?

 

[chibears55]

Your example would be valid if Bonilla never played for the Mets or gave them anything in terms of production. But he did.

Take your example, and twist it slightly. You work for me at a job in which the salary would typically be $40,000. You work for me for 5 years, and I will pay you $30,000 for those 5 years, and $10,000 a year for the five years after you leave.

How is this a horrific investment for me?

It ends up bad when you now need to find a guy less talented to pay him less money in the 5 yrs your paying someone money to sit home to keep payroll where you want it..

 

[Parade_Rain]

Since when is Edwards a top 25 prospect? I've not see anyone rate him in the top 50. MLB.com currently has him at 53.

Edit: Also if neither Strasburg nor Zimmermann is worth those two players who is? You're talking about the #13 and #10 pitchers in terms of fWAR. This is my problem with your stance. There is a huge disconnect between how you view them and how I view them. If you're suggesting Strasburg/Zimmermann are average players I think the stats blatantly disagree. If you're suggesting Baez/Edwards are too good to give up I'd frankly ask based on what? I'm the first to admit I'm not high on Baez but to suggest he's proven anything is completely unrealistic. At this point he hasn't even proven he's a major league player. Those who are in on him are for his potential. Edwards has yet to throw more than 150 innings in a season and hasn't pitched above AA. As I said before I like Edwards but until you're throwing 150+ innings you've proven nothing as a starter because if you don't go out and take the ball every 5th day then your value is limited. Look at someone like Cashner. Super talented guy but hasn't been able to do it.

I didn't tell you Edwards was a Top 25 prospect. You implied that Zimmerman and Strasburg would cost more than Shark. Do you read your own posts? Neither one of those are worth more in a trade to the Cubs than Shark based upon where the Cubs are currently as an organization. As for MY POST and my position, you keep looking at some mythical trade based upon "production vs potential". For some reason you think Epstein is going balls to the wall this season to beat the Cardinals and get a ring. They are not. This year, they are still evaluating their potential. They aren't trading away Edwards' potential this off-season. Things could change at the deadline perhaps.

 

[beckdawg]

I didn't tell you Edwards was a Top 25 prospect. You implied that Zimmerman and Strasburg would cost more than Shark. Do you read your own posts? Neither one of those are worth more in a trade to the Cubs than Shark based upon where the Cubs are currently as an organization. As for MY POST and my position, you keep looking at some mythical trade based upon "production vs potential". For some reason you think Epstein is going balls to the wall this season to beat the Cardinals and get a ring. They are not. This year, they are still evaluating their potential. They aren't trading away Edwards' potential this off-season. Things could change at the deadline perhaps.

I said it would cost something more than Russell(top 10) and McKinney who was fringe top 100. There's a vast difference between top 100 and top 25. In this case, I think it would cost them Edwards. As for "where they are as an organization," I stated in my first post that I didn't think it was likely. Where I took issue is you essentially implied it's stupid to trade Edwards. I wholeheartedly disagree.

Looking at the cubs and saying "their not ready yet" is completely short sighted. Of course their not and I'm not implying they are going to win the division or even finish above .500. The reason it wouldn't be stupid to trade Edwards if it nets you someone like Strasburg is simply because mid-20's top-15 pitcher don't hit the market often. Would Strasburg on this year's cubs be a year maybe two early? Sure. But A) you don't make that sort of trade without assurance you can sign that player long term and B) 2 years from now Strasburg is going to be 28 and we have no reason to believe he will fall off from the 4 WAR player he's been. There's no guarantee that quality of player will be available in FA when they are "ready." This is the same path the team actually took trying to sign Tanaka. They weren't ready to win last year either. But, pitchers of that age and quality are rare.

You said yourself things could change at the deadline. The obvious implication you're making here is if the cubs get off to a hot start and are better than we think they will be that they could use the better player. I agree in an ideal world that's the move. My point is that there is no guarantee someone like Strasburg is available then and even if he is you know perfectly well teams are going to rake other teams over the coals to extract more value at the deadline. I believe trades are typically cheaper in the offseason because there are other options out there where as at the deadline it's more scarce. For example, if you were to look for a pitcher now there's still players like Shields in FA and the trade market is bigger. Also I would point out that if you hit FA you're probably paying a first round pick when the cubs are ready and that could conceivably be as good of a player as Edwards anyways.

Another example I would point out is the James Shields trade. Were the Royals "ready" when that trade was made? Probably not. I'm sure KC's front office would have been more optimistic than general fans. Simply put, its about acquiring talent when you can. And ultimately many would argue that the James Shields trade was a large catalyst for the Royals run this past season.

 

[JimJohnson]

This board's lack of understanding of "time value of money" is frightening. If you can pay a guy $15 mil a year for 14 years rather than $30 mil a year for the next 7, you do it every single fucking time without blinking. It's the most basic concept in corporate finance and is so simple that even a child should be able to understand it.

 

[beckdawg]

This board's lack of understanding of "time value of money" is frightening. If you can pay a guy $15 mil a year for 14 years rather than $30 mil a year for the next 7, you do it every single fucking time without blinking. It's the most basic concept in corporate finance and is so simple that even a child should be able to understand it.

You're over simplifying this some. Baseball isn't any other business environment. If it were teams like Houston and the cubs the past few years would be considered the most successful organizations based on profit margin. There's arguments from both sides that are valid. Deferring money makes sense when you consider TV contracts and the fact they are in a window of competition. If they are paying him when they are rebuilding it's really not that big of a deal since you're likely running a lean roster similar to what the cubs have done the past few years. On the other hand, I would argue that 7 years is a long time to be differing that money. Additionally, if you run into a situation where your team implodes for whatever reason then you're stuck up shits creek. In a more typical contract you might be able to deal him having the other team eat the money if he is pitching well. For example, think Cole Hamels. Given the structure of his contract the Nats will be eating that differed money if they try to trade him.

Overall, I don't have a huge problem with the concept of differing the money. However, I can't say I really like the move for the Nats. Think they have put themselves in a situation where they have to make numerous other roster moves. Feels like they are making an all in play to win the next year or two

Edit: Fangraphs as an interesting article about this. If you account for the fact future dollars aren't worth the same his contract is worth about $10 mil more than what Lester got. The comments section also brought up something I hadn't considered which is the luxury tax. I believe it doesn't matter as the money is figured as an AAV for that but i'm not 100% sure which would be an interesting way to skirt that.

 

[JimJohnson]

On the other hand, I would argue that 7 years is a long time to be differing that money. Additionally, if you run into a situation where your team implodes for whatever reason then you're stuck up shits creek.

I'm not oversimplifying it in the least. A dollar today is worth more than a dollar in the future. If you ask Scherzer (assuming he's a rational thinking human being), he would prefer to get $30m paid over the next 7 years rather than $15m paid over the next 14 years. Allen Iverson (an irrational thinking human being) would probably prefer the $15m over 14 because he would just piss it away if he gets it sooner.

The possibility of a team imploding doesn't change any of this. It's simple math. A dollar today is worth more than a dollar in the future. Therefore, if you're an employer, you would prefer to defer expenses to the future as you can generate a return on the money today.

 

[beckdawg]

I'm not oversimplifying it in the least. A dollar today is worth more than a dollar in the future.

And my point is there's more to consider than the value of a dollar. You're looking at this from that narrow focus. Player contracts are typically short term(1-3 years) to medium term(4-7) in regards to normal lengths of business deals. The reason for this is the volatility of players. Differing the money makes this a long term investment for them. As I said before, by structuring this deal in such a way they have essentially made him untradable. That in turn makes certain decisions for them from here on out.

It also ignores the possibility of other ways of using those same funds such as reupping with their own players.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

And my point is there's more to consider than the value of a dollar. You're looking at this from that narrow focus. Player contracts are typically short term(1-3 years) to medium term(4-7) in regards to normal lengths of business deals. The reason for this is the volatility of players. Differing the money makes this a long term investment for them. As I said before, by structuring this deal in such a way they have essentially made him untradable. That in turn makes certain decisions for them from here on out.

It also ignores the possibility of other ways of using those same funds such as reupping with their own players.

Spot on. What people are ignoring is that by deferring the money Washington is assuring that Scherzer has zero value to anyone but them. In and of itself that's franchise altering.

 

[Parade_Rain]

I said it would cost something more than Russell(top 10) and McKinney who was fringe top 100. There's a vast difference between top 100 and top 25. In this case, I think it would cost them Edwards. As for "where they are as an organization," I stated in my first post that I didn't think it was likely. Where I took issue is you essentially implied it's stupid to trade Edwards. I wholeheartedly disagree.

Great. You/I could have stopped there by simply agreeing to disagree. :tongue:

Looking at the cubs and saying "their not ready yet" is completely short sighted. Of course their not and I'm not implying they are going to win the division or even finish above .500. The reason it wouldn't be stupid to trade Edwards if it nets you someone like Strasburg is simply because mid-20's top-15 pitcher don't hit the market often. Would Strasburg on this year's cubs be a year maybe two early? Sure. But A) you don't make that sort of trade without assurance you can sign that player long term and B) 2 years from now Strasburg is going to be 28 and we have no reason to believe he will fall off from the 4 WAR player he's been. There's no guarantee that quality of player will be available in FA when they are "ready." This is the same path the team actually took trying to sign Tanaka. They weren't ready to win last year either. But, pitchers of that age and quality are rare.

Well, it isn't the same path, because Tanaka only cost money, not players.

You said yourself things could change at the deadline. The obvious implication you're making here is if the cubs get off to a hot start and are better than we think they will be that they could use the better player. I agree in an ideal world that's the move.

That's what the company plan is.

My point is that there is no guarantee someone like Strasburg is available then and even if he is you know perfectly well teams are going to rake other teams over the coals to extract more value at the deadline. I believe trades are typically cheaper in the offseason because there are other options out there where as at the deadline it's more scarce. For example, if you were to look for a pitcher now there's still players like Shields in FA and the trade market is bigger. Also I would point out that if you hit FA you're probably paying a first round pick when the cubs are ready and that could conceivably be as good of a player as Edwards anyways.

They don't want a player like Shields.

Another example I would point out is the James Shields trade. Were the Royals "ready" when that trade was made? Probably not. I'm sure KC's front office would have been more optimistic than general fans.

Royals/cubs are not the same organization.

Simply put, its about acquiring talent when you can. And ultimately many would argue that the James Shields trade was a large catalyst for the Royals run this past season.

If they pull the trigger on this deal, I'll be the first to commend you.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

I caught this on National's fan site but apparently a Washington media member proposed this trade; Strasburg and Desmond to the Cubs for Castro and one of the top 5 prospects. He argued that Strasburg makes the Cubs better immediately and Desmond is a fill in for Castro while Addison Russell develops. If I were the Cubs I wouldn't make that deal but I get the logic. Thoughts?

 

[brett05]

I caught this on National's fan site but apparently a Washington media member proposed this trade; Strasburg and Desmond to the Cubs for Castro and one of the top 5 prospects. He argued that Strasburg makes the Cubs better immediately and Desmond is a fill in for Castro while Addison Russell develops. If I were the Cubs I wouldn't make that deal but I get the logic. Thoughts?

So that means you can keep Bryant, Soler, Baez, Russell and trade away whomever slots in #5 with Castro, Done and Done.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

So that means you can keep Bryant, Soler, Baez, Russell and trade away whomever slots in #5 with Castro, Done and Done.

You're probably looking at Almora, Edwards or Schwarber. I'd give up one of those guys, that's not the issue. The issue is that Strasburg is a 3.5 WAR pitcher (approximately) and Castro is a 3.5 WAR position player. The first year Desmond and Castro wash but then you're looking at 2 years of Strasburg for 4 years (5 with the option) of Castro. Price seems awfully high for a pitcher you likely won't be able to extend. If you could, yeah I'd make the deal in a heartbeat.

 

[Parade_Rain]

I caught this on National's fan site but apparently a Washington media member proposed this trade; Strasburg and Desmond to the Cubs for Castro and one of the top 5 prospects. He argued that Strasburg makes the Cubs better immediately and Desmond is a fill in for Castro while Addison Russell develops. If I were the Cubs I wouldn't make that deal but I get the logic. Thoughts?

So, IOW, the Nationals' media member is trying to rip off the Cubs. Strasburg for Castro isn't even fair because of how much team control the Cubs have. Then you trade a Top 5 prospect for Desmond...a "filler"? LOL.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

So, IOW, the Nationals' media member is trying to rip off the Cubs. Strasburg for Castro isn't even fair because of how much team control the Cubs have. Then you trade a Top 5 prospect for Desmond...a "filler"? LOL.

This was my take as well. Again because in 2015 the 1 year of Desmond is just basically an even swap for Castro and then you're talking 4 years (the option is expensive so let's leave that out) of control (Castro) for 2 years of control (Strasburg). Unless you immediately signed an extension with Strasburg the value is not there for Chicago.

 

[brett05]

You're probably looking at Almora, Edwards or Schwarber. I'd give up one of those guys, that's not the issue. The issue is that Strasburg is a 3.5 WAR pitcher (approximately) and Castro is a 3.5 WAR position player. The first year Desmond and Castro wash but then you're looking at 2 years of Strasburg for 4 years (5 with the option) of Castro. Price seems awfully high for a pitcher you likely won't be able to extend. If you could, yeah I'd make the deal in a heartbeat.

Putting aside the value of WAR, all things equal, the starting pitcher always wins.

 

[TL1961]

It ends up bad when you now need to find a guy less talented to pay him less money in the 5 yrs your paying someone money to sit home to keep payroll where you want it..

No.

The $40K I paid for your 5 years was split into 30 while you worked, and 10 from the "bank" I put it in, and I am not paying any more in year 6. I am paying the new guy his salary, and withdrawing your deferred salary from the "bank", where it has earned me interest, thus lowering my overall expense, not increasing it.

The fact that I defer the salary for Player 1 does not mean I need to get a cheaper Player 2 later.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

Putting aside the value of WAR, all things equal, the starting pitcher always wins.

Yes but value in WAR and it's lopsided. Sign Strasburg though and it's genius. Tough call with a lot of risk. The funny thing is Washington would probably take that deal if it was offered but would Theo/Jed offer it? I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[brett05]

Yes but value in WAR and it's lopsided. Sign Strasburg though and it's genius. Tough call with a lot of risk. The funny thing is Washington would probably take that deal if it was offered but would Theo/Jed offer it? I wouldn't bet on it.

When you say take the deal, which deal are you referring to?

 

[TC in Mississippi]

Castro and a top 5 for Desmond/Strasburg.